G.R. No. L-68566. April 15, 1985.
ALEX COMBATE, petitioner, vs. THE HON. GERONIMO R. SAN JOSE, JR., Municipal Trial Judge of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Magarao-Canaman, Camarines Sur, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Alex Combate was charged with theft of a fighting cock valued at P200.00 before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court presided by respondent Judge. The court applied the Rule on Summary Procedure in Special Cases, requiring the submission of counter-affidavits, which petitioner complied with. Subsequently, petitioner was subpoenaed, arraigned without the assistance of counsel, and pleaded not guilty.
Thereafter, respondent Judge deemed the case submitted for resolution based on the affidavits and, without conducting a trial, rendered a decision convicting petitioner of theft and sentencing him to six months’ imprisonment. Petitioner filed this certiorari action, alleging a denial of due process for being arraigned without counsel and convicted without trial.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge gravely abused his discretion in convicting petitioner without trial and without the assistance of counsel during arraignment, thereby violating petitioner’s right to due process.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court annulled the decision. The legal logic is twofold. First, the Rule on Summary Procedure was inapplicable. This rule covers only offenses punishable by imprisonment not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding P1,000.00, or both. Theft of property valued over P50.00 is penalized under Article 309(4) of the Revised Penal Code with arresto mayor in its medium period to prision correccional in its minimum period, a penalty ranging from two months and one day to two years and four months. Thus, the summary procedure rules did not govern the case.
Second, even assuming the rule applied, it does not dispense with trial upon a plea of not guilty. Sections 11 and 14 of the Rule mandate that after finding cause to hold the defendant, the court must set the case for arraignment and immediate trial. The affidavits serve as direct testimonies, but witnesses must be presented and are subject to cross-examination. Here, respondent Judge violated these provisions by arraigning petitioner without counsel and rendering a judgment based solely on affidavits without any trial, thereby depriving petitioner of his fundamental rights to counsel and to confront witnesses. A judgment rendered in complete disregard of procedural norms is void. Consequently, no double jeopardy attaches, and the case must be remanded for proper trial. The petition was granted.